I just got a CO2 meter and checked the levels in my house and went down a rabbit hole trying to address the issue. Apparently it would take 249 areca palms to offset the carbon RESPIRATION of one adult.

So okay 249 trees just for me to breathe, not to mention the rest of the bad things we all do.

So how can this math ever balance? 249 trees just to break even seems like an impossible number. Then all the flights I have been on, miles driven, etc.

I feel like that’s… Way too many trees. Is it hopeless or am I missing something?

    • @mister_monster
      link
      English
      -110 months ago

      Just no huh.

      The article you link shows carbon dioxide having a stronger impact on warming than methane in aggregate, which is what I’m talking about and what matters.

      • @meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        510 months ago

        Methane in the Earth’s atmosphere is a powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 84 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame.

        You were crying about people bemoaning the impact of cows breathing. You were wrong.

        • @mister_monster
          link
          English
          -610 months ago

          potential. Do you even understand what you’re citing? There are graphs in the article if words are hard. Do you know what radiative forcing is? You should read about it.

          • Skua
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            The fact that you are isolating the word “potential” suggests that you don’t realise what “global warming potential” actually is. It’s a measurement for comparing the effect of greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide, not the top of an error bar

            • @mister_monster
              link
              English
              010 months ago

              I understand this, but it’s a comparison between the two compounds, not a comparison of the effect each are having at the volumes they get released.

              Cows uptake a lot of carbon dioxide just by existing as biomass. This more than offsets any methane they fart out.

              • Skua
                link
                fedilink
                210 months ago

                Is that second sentence something you have numbers for or a guess?

                • beaubbe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  For fun, a rough estimate is 20% of an animal’s mass in carbon. A cow is around 600kg (1000 pounds). That means 120kg of carbon. Carbon being 12g per mols, that is 10’000 mols of carbon. Turn that all in CO2, that makes 10’000 mols of CO2 which is 44g per mols, so 440 kg of CO2.

                  As methane (CH4), it is instead (16g per mols) : 160kg.

                  A cow produces 100kg of methane a year so a cow’s biomass is not sufficient to compensate for it’s methane production over its life.

                  Plus, when you eat the cow, you are the one farting that carbon back in the athmosphere anyway.

                  Still, cattle is 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.